Part 2

The second idea is bus rapid transit.

Unlike conventional bus system, BRT is its new interpretation. It has most of advantages of train system without its cost. There are no complete agreement on what constitutes as BRT, but to me the following rough idea will explain what I believe to be BRT.

Walter Hook, director of the Institute of Transportation and Development Policy, measures the success of BRT by whether or not commuters identify BRT as permanent structure within city on part with trains and trams. Let me explain further. When we think of train, we immediately think of its stations and rail tracks. In Melbourne, we will probably think of a system under severe stress. Similarly, when we think of trams, we think of rigid tracks that run with automobiles, sometimes in complete separation from the main traffics. And in recent time, platform stops around CBD.  So, when I say that BRT's success is measured by comparing with trains and trams, I mean that Melway includes all of BRT infrastructures in its publication. 

So, what elements can combined to form BRT? 

First, its stations must be distinct from normal bus stops. In most implementation, this entails a raised platform, where the floor of station is level with the bus floor. I believe this is not necessary enough. A well-designed stations are generally enclosed and provide pre-paid ticket system. This allows the commuters to purchase ticket prior to the bus entry and thus reduces the time waste at each stop. Now, the main problem with this system is that conductors are required at each station, and hence increasing the operating cost. In addition, some stations can be designed to be local landmarks within suburbs like New York subway mosaic.

Second, the bus must be distinct from the conventional bus. Commuters cannot distinct the difference between normal bus from BRT if the BRT fleet is essentially the same as bus fleet. That is, there is no point in running BRT with old rundown buses. So what should be included in the new bus? The bus should be fitted with two wide rear and front doors to facilitate large flow of commuters. I am sure that there are more innovation out there.

Third, in some system, its buses run on separate lane. Note that this is not essential elements, depending on the condition of the local traffics. The philosophy is that the bus must be able to navigate through without interruption. So, in low traffics condition, often the mixed used lane is sufficient. In contrast, in dense traffic like Hoddle st during peak hour, separate bus lane is crucial to the success of BRT. For example, an ideal design may reserve two lanes for BRT buses and local buses. This may be physically separated like the proposal for New York.

Further within close proximity of the station, some street furniture is required. What makes train station distinctive is all the local street furniture associated with it. It is simply not enough to just put a station and expect it to do a trick. For intuition, pedestrian crossing and walkable street with cafes maybe added to create unique culture around the station. This is something bus stop or highway can never achieve. 

Advantages

1. Cheap per mile in comparison with train and tram.
2. Easy to implement. In general, the route should coincide with the one with high bus usage. 
3. High frequency.
4. Express service means faster transportation.

Disadvantages

1. In the face of climate change, it is harder to change the bus fleet to something carbon neutral.
2. Addition of the bus on the road means higher road maintenance cost.

  For example of well implemented system see TranMilenio in Bogota, Colombia.